Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
i am not sure that i see how privatized censorship is any less censorship than it would be had it been carried out by an arm of the state.
why bother with explicit acts of political censorship when you can create conditions that would prompt people do do the work on their own?
how did the seperation between types of agencies responsible for particular acts of censorship turn into a seperation between types of actions (on the one hand, censorship, on the other a private individual exercizing his regal prerogatives over his domain)?
personally, i think the gallery's decision is contemptable....weak.
a fine statement to give to young artists, who in general have trouble getting shows to begin with--be nice, be servile, or we will close you down.
|
Weak? Spineless? Seems as though the owner of the gallery had enough balls to toss out someone whose political expression in art he didn't care for.
The youngster's first amendment rights were not abridged. He was there on the sufferance of the gallery owner, with the express purpose of displaying art, not to make political protests.
The lesson here is to please the audience and the sponsor. The youngster didn't please the gallery owner. Unless a person is self-sufficient or has a trust fund from their family, the only way they're gonna eat is to please the public. There are no young, controverisal figures who have to work for a living. It's a fact of life. Here, France, Italy, any place you want to name. If you are making trouble for the establishment, you are either poor, rich, or whoring yourself to a rich sponsor. You don't "have permission" to be controversial until you've earned enough of a reputation to warrant people putting up with your attitude.
Here's another lesson: If you want to fly in the face of the popular market, make sure you don't need them to pay for your groceries.